Published September 26, 2025 | Version 1

Fostering Research Integrity through Training: The training materials of four EU-funded projects through the lens of pedagogical underpinnings and three taxonomies of learning

  • 1. Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • 2. Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
  • 3. Research Support, Research Policy Office, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • 4. Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Ethics Law and Humanities, Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • 5. Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  • 6. German Reference Centre for Ethics in the Life Sciences (DRZE), University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  • 7. Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany
  • 8. University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
  • 9. ADAPT Centre, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland

Files

openreseurope-5-22532.pdf

Files (3.2 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:fcc7a86b4282359f9b661b5e9fc68ed9
3.2 MB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (revised edition).
  • (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (second revised edition).
  • Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing.
  • Baehr J (2013). Educating for intellectual virtues: from theory to practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12023
  • Bebeau MJ, Rest JR, Narvaez D (1999). Beyond the promise: a perspective on research in moral education. Educ Res. doi:10.3102/0013189X028004018
  • Berkowitz MW, Bier MC (2007). What works in character education. J Res Character Educ.
  • Berling E, McLeskey C, O'Rourke M (2019). A new method for a virtue-based responsible conduct of research curriculum: pilot test results. Sci Eng Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9991-2
  • Bertram Gallant T (Ed.) (2011). Creating the ethical academy. A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in Higher Education.
  • Biggs J (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ. doi:10.1007/BF00138871
  • Biggs J (1999). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. High Educ Res Dev. doi:10.1080/0729436990180105
  • Biggs J, Tang K (2007). Teaching for quality learning at University (3rd ed.).
  • Bishop LJ, Szobota L (2015). Teaching bioethics at the secondary school level. Hastings Cent Rep. doi:10.1002/hast.487
  • Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals.
  • Burr V, King N (2012). 'You're in Cruel England now!': teaching research ethics through reality television. Psychol Learn Teach. doi:10.2304/plat.2012.11.1.22
  • Butterfield KD, Trevin LK, Weaver GR (2000). Moral awareness in business organizations: influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations. doi:10.1177/0018726700537004
  • Clarkeburn H (2002). The aims and practice of ethics education in an undergraduate curriculum: reasons for choosing a skills approach. Journal of Further and Higher Education. doi:10.1080/0309877022000021711
  • (2024). Ethics and integrity: building bridges for trust and excellence in research and innovation.
  • Evans N, Marusic A, Foeger N (2021). Virtue-based ethics and integrity of research: train-the-trainer programme for upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (VIRT²UE). Res Ideas Outcomes.
  • Evans N, Schmolmueller A, Stolper M (2024). VIRT²UE: a European train-the-trainer programme for teaching research integrity. Research Ethics. doi:10.1177/17470161231161267
  • Dee Fink L (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: an integrated approach to designing college courses.
  • Fisher CB, Kuther TL (1997). Integrating research ethics into the introductory psychology course curriculum. Teaching of Psychology. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2403_4
  • Forsberg EM, Anthun FO, Bailey S (2018). Working with research integrity-guidance for research performing organisations: the bonn PRINTEGER statement. Sci Eng Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4
  • Gethmann CF (2005). Dialog, rationaler [rational dialogue].
  • Goddiksen MP, Quinn U, Kovács N (2021). Good friend or good student? An interview study of perceived conflicts between personal and academic integrity among students in three European countries. Account Res. doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1826319
  • Goddiksen MP, Willum Johansen M, Armond AC (2024). Grey zones and good practice: a European survey of academic integrity among undergraduate students. Ethics & Behavior. doi:10.1080/10508422.2023.2187804
  • Godecharle S, Nemery B, Dierickx K (2013). Integrity training: conflicting practices. Science. doi:10.1126/science.340.6139.1403-b
  • Habermas J (1990). Discourse ethics: notes on a program of philosophical justification.
  • Haidt J (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814
  • Hermeking N, Priess-Buchheit J (2022). What's integrity got to do with it? Second-year experiences of the Path2Integrity e-learning programme. FACETS. doi:10.1139/facets-2021-0047
  • Ike CG, Anderson NA (2018). Proposal for teaching bioethics in high schools using appropriate visual education tools. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. doi:10.1186/s13010-018-0064-1
  • Johansen MW, Goddiksen MP, Centa M (2022). Lack of ethics or lack of knowledge? European upper secondary students' doubts and misconceptions about integrity issues. Int J Educ Integr. doi:10.1007/s40979-022-00113-0
  • Jonassen DH (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educ Technol Res Dev. doi:10.1007/BF02299613
  • Kalichman M (2014). Rescuing Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education. Account Res. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822271
  • Kalichman MW, Devereaux ML, Plemmons DK (2022). A course for teaching and learning about the responsible conduct of research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. doi:10.1177/15562646211047163
  • Kalichman MW, Plemmons DK (2007). Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Acad Med. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f78bf
  • Kalyuga S, Ayres P, Chandler P (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educ Psychol. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_4
  • Katsarov J, Andorno R, Krom A (2022). Effective strategies for research integrity training—a meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09630-9
  • Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  • Krathwohl DR (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
  • Labib K, Evans N, Pizzolato D (2023). Co-creating research integrity education guidelines for research institutions. Sci Eng Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-023-00444-2
  • Lorenz K (2005). Dialog [Dialogue]. Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie.
  • Löfström E (2016). Role-playing institutional academic integrity policy-making: using researched perspectives to develop pedagogy. Int J Educ Integr. doi:10.1007/s40979-016-0011-0
  • MacIntyre A (1981). After virtue. A study in moral theory.
  • Mayer RE (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?. Am Psychol. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
  • McCormack WT, Garvan CW (2014). Team-based learning instruction for responsible conduct of research positively impacts ethical decision-making. Account Res. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822267
  • Mejlgaard N, Bouter LM, Gaskell G (2020). Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8
  • Mustajoki H, Mustajoki A (2017). A new approach to research ethics: using guided dialogue to strengthen research communities. doi:10.4324/9781315545318
  • Nonis S, Swift CO (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. J Educ Bus. doi:10.1080/08832320109599052
  • O'Neill G, Murphy F (2010). Assessment. Guide to taxonomies of learning.
  • Pennock RT, O'Rourke M (2017). Developing a scientific virtue-based approach to science ethics training. Sci Eng Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9757-2
  • Pizzolato D, Dierickx K (2021). Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z
  • Priess-Buchheit J (2020). Path2Integrity learning cards: first-year experiences of an educational programme to foster research integrity in Europe. Edukacja.
  • Prieß-Buchheit J, Aro AR, Demirova I (2020). Rotatory role-playing and role-models to enhance the research integrity culture. Res Ideas Outcomes. doi:10.3897/rio.6.e53921
  • Quintana C, Reiser BJ, Davis EA (2004). Scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. J Learn Sci. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
  • Resnik DB, Shamoo AE (2011). The Singapore statement on research integrity. Account Res. doi:10.1080/08989621.2011.557296
  • Rissanen M, Löfström E (2014). Students' research ethics competences and the university as a learning environment. Int J Educ Integr. doi:10.21913/IJEI.v10i2.1004
  • Tammeleht A, Koort K, Rodríguez-Triana MJ (2022). Knowledge building process during collaborative research ethics training for researchers: experiences from one university. Int J Ethics Educ. doi:10.1007/s40889-021-00138-y
  • Tammeleht A, Löfström E (2023). Learners' self-assessment as a measure to evaluate the effectiveness of research ethics and integrity training: can we rely on self-reports?. Ethics Behav. doi:10.1080/10508422.2023.2266073
  • Tammeleht A, Löfström E (2025a). How do you know if research ethics and integrity training is effective? Overview of prior literature. Ethics Behav. doi:10.1080/10508422.2025.2493055
  • Tammeleht A, Löfström E (2025b). Measuring ethics training effectiveness – introducing a toolbox. Int J Ethics Educ. doi:10.1007/s40889-025-00214-7
  • Tammeleht A, Löfström E, Rajando K (2024). Effectiveness of research ethics and integrity competence development – what do learning diaries tell us about learning?. Int J Ethics Educ. doi:10.1007/s40889-024-00186-0
  • Tammeleht A, Rodríguez-Triana MJ, Koort K (2019). Collaborative case-based learning process in research ethics. Int J Educ Integr. doi:10.1007/s40979-019-0043-3
  • Tammeleht A, Rodríguez-Triana MJ, Koort K (2021). Scaffolding collaborative case-based learning during research ethics training. J Acad Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10805-020-09378-x
  • Tryon GS (2000). Ethical transgressions of school psychology graduate students: a critical incidents survey. Ethics Behav. doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1003_5
  • van Loon M, Katsarov J, Crean D (2023). Assessing the outcomes of responsible conduct of research education: a qualitative content analysis of validated measures. OSF Home.
  • van den Hoven M, Lindemann T, Zollitsch L (2023). A Taxonomy for Research Integrity Training: design, conduct, and improvements in research integrity courses. Sci Eng Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x
  • (2017). Mission of the WCRIF - The World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation.
  • Widdershoven G, Solbakk J (2019). Dialogue versus debate.
  • Zucchero RA (2008). Can psychology ethics be integrated into introductory psychology?. J Acad Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10805-009-9070-7